Talk:Turret (enemy)
Move Proposal I believe that we discussed this on the Talk:Turrets page. Anyway disagree with the move proposal. Lancer1289 22:01, July 6, 2010 (UTC) I mentioned this somewhat already at Talk:Turrets, but it got lost in the move that was unrelated to it. So I'm adding this here so there can be a clear discussion about only this issue. I feel quite strongly that typing "Turret" in the side bar should bring someone to the general page (Turrets) for information about turrets in general. Right now if someone types turret, they're brought to this page, which is information about a single enemy called a turret. They will need an extra click to get to the page about Turrets in general. Perhaps this is an assumption on my part, but it's not an assumption without merit. So the proposal in full, again: #The contents of this page gets moved to Turret (enemy) #Turret becomes a redirect to Turrets #A disambiguation link on the Turrets page will direct people to Turret (enemy), if they were looking specifically for the enemy named Turret. Turret and Turrets are just different quantities of the same thing, so I feel strongly that the pages should be "the same" in content. Having articles that differ by a single letter that have vastly different content will only serve to confuse people. Dammej 22:05, July 6, 2010 (UTC) :I agree with Dammej. This article should be named Turret (enemy) to prevent confusion and Turret should be turned into a redirect to Turrets. Bastian964 01:03, July 7, 2010 (UTC) Well after the voting time is up, it is 2-1 in favor of the move, so moving and will be modding the various links and this is going to take a while. Lancer1289 02:10, July 17, 2010 (UTC) Split proposal I'm suggesting a split because the turret in ME3 is a whole different type of turret from ME, despite its similar name. The ME3 turret should have its own separate article. — Teugene (Talk) 07:02, March 27, 2012 (UTC) :I disagree. While they are different, they are still named the same, so they share the same article. This would prevent confusion down the line. Lancer1289 12:39, March 27, 2012 (UTC) I agree that a split is necessary since they are two different things and having the same name is no reason for them to have to share an article. However, Turret (enemy) (Mass Effect 3) is not a good name (and leaving the other one as Turret (enemy) is just ripe for confusion). There will be no confusion about the pages if one is named Turret (ME enemy) and the other is Turret (ME3 enemy) or something similar and that also makes so the names aren't unwieldy.Bastian9 14:53, March 27, 2012 (UTC) :The naming (ME enemy) and (ME3 enemy) disambiguation is a lot better than what I proposed. I would go for these instead. — Teugene (Talk) 15:09, March 27, 2012 (UTC) ::For split with (ME) additions.--Xaero Dumort 17:24, March 27, 2012 (UTC) :::I vote for that as well. --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie 17:27, March 27, 2012 (UTC) ::::Tentative support. While I disagree that a move is necessary (we don't split enemy articles by game), if a move must be carried out, it should be to "Turret (Mass Effect)" and "Turret (Mass Effect 3)". As far as I am aware we have never used the fan abbreviations ME, ME2, and ME3 in any disambiguation suffixes for articles (or in any articles titles for that matter), and I don't want to start now. If the split destinations are not changed from their current forms, consider this a strong oppose to the split. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:33, March 29, 2012 (UTC) We might not split articles by game but we do split articles if they are about different things, and these two turrets might have the same name but they are most certainly different things. As for the names, you are right using abbreviations is disallowed by the rules and I agree that the new titles should be Turret (Mass Effect) and Turret (Mass Effect 3). In fact even without the rule against abbreviations, I would say that they are better titles since there really is no need to put enemy in the title.Bastian9 15:18, April 1, 2012 (UTC) :Sorry about the long reply Commdor. Was meant to reply until I got interrupted in something else and forgot about it later. Anyway, you are right about the abbreviation. I shall take down my previous proposal then and go with Bastian's. Does that mean we need to restart the support/against count or will it still be considered for the new naming proposal? :On a side note, I realized another enemy (Geth Turret) that will need a split as its ME3 version is totally different from ME. — Teugene (Talk) 16:06, April 1, 2012 (UTC) ::Since you're the proposer, you can change the destinations for the split at any time without resetting the wait as long as you note that change in this discussion. The vote continues as before. -- Commdor (Talk) 16:40, April 1, 2012 (UTC) Splitting the turret articles is not a bad idea. I support it. Mr. Mittens 16:10, April 1, 2012 (UTC) The split proposal passes 6-1. Splitting the article now. -- Commdor (Talk) 17:50, April 5, 2012 (UTC)